Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Union of India and Another – Appellants
Versus
Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through His LRs. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4672 of 2024, Arising Out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019
Decided On : 03-04-2024
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Limitation period – Condonation of delay – If litigant chooses to approach court long after lapse of the time prescribed under relevant provisions of law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by delay being condoned – Length of delay is a relevant matter which court must take into consideration while considering whether delay should be condoned or not – Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of case, he cannot be heard to plead that substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against technical considerations – While considering plea for condonation of delay, court must not start with merits of main matter – Court owes a duty to first ascertain bona fides of explanation offered by party seeking condonation – It is only if sufficient cause assigned by litigant and opposition of other side is equally balanced that court may bring into aid merits of matter for the purpose of condoning delay. (Paras 25 and 26)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Limitation period – Condonation of delay – Question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration – Rules of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and principles of equity – Delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity – Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to opposite party – Appellants have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning delay is not satisfied in this case – High Court committed no error much less any error of law in passing impugned order – Even otherwise, High Court was exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 27, 34, 35 and 36)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from an order passed by a Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 09.07.2019 in Civil Application No. 1494 of 2019 filed in Writ Petition No. 2307 of 1993 by which High Court declined to condone delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing application for restoration of Writ Petition No. 2307 of 1993 which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 10.10.2006.
Findings of Court:
We should not keep ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over head of respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of appellants.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from an order passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 09.07.2019 in Civil Application No. 1494 of 2019 filed in Writ Petition No. 2307 of 1993 by which the High Court declined to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the application for restoration of the Writ Petition No. 2307 of 1993 referred to above which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 10.10.2006.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under.
4. The suit property bearing S. No. 402, Bungalow No. 15A, situated at Staveley Road, Pune Cantonment, Pune-1 was leased by the respondent in favour of the appellants on 09.03.1951.
5. As the appellants committed breach of the terms of the lease deed, the respondent herein instituted civil suit bearing No. 2599 of 1981 before the Court of the 4th Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune for the recovery of the possession of the suit property & arrears towards the rent.
6. On 02.05.1987, the suit came to be allowed and the final decree came to be passed in the following terms:
(1) The plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit premises.
(2) The defendant shall deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs or before 30.6.1987.
(3) The defendants do pay by way of damages and mesne profits and notice charges Rs. 17,383/- to the plaintiffs.
(4) The defendant shall also pay future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 316/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of possession of the suit premises under order 20 Rule 12(1) of CPC.
(5) The defendant shall pay costs of this suit to the plaintiffs and shall bear their own.”
7. The appellants herein challenged the judgment and decree referred to above by preferring Civil Appeal bearing No. 850 of 1987 in the Court of the District Judge, Pune. The appeal filed by the appellants herein came to be dismissed vide the judgment and order dated 29.08.1992 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Pune.
8. The judgment and order passed by the first appellate court dismissing the appeal referred to above came to be challenged by the appellants herein by filing the Petition No. 2307 of 1993 before the High Court of Bombay invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. On 10.10.2006, the Petition No. 2307 of 1993 referred to above came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The order reads thus:
AND UPON hearing Shri. D.S. Mhaispurkar for Respondent Nos. 1A to 1C and 2 this Court has passed the following order:
“None for the Petitioners. Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar for the Respondents 1A to C and 2.
Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim order is vacated.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ordered that this writ petition is disposed of as per the accompanying court's order. The directions given in the court's order hereinabove shall be carried out and complied with scrupulously.
It is accordingly ordered that this order be punctually observed and carried into execution by concerned.”
10. On 26.11.2013 the respondent herein filed Execution Petition bearing No. 16 of 2014. The appellants herein were served with the notice in the execution proceedings on 18.03.2016 by the Executing Court.
11. On 20.08.2018, the appellants herein filed an application seeking to set aside the order passed by the Executing Court. On 30.10.2018 the Executing Court set aside the said order referred to above.
12. On 12.04.2019, the appellants herein filed Civil Application No. 1294 of 2019 seeking restoration of the Petition No. 2307 of 1993 referred to above and for condonation of delay of 12 years and 158 days in preferring such restoration application.
13. On 09.07.2019, a learned single Judge of the High Court vide the impugned order declined to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the restoration application.
14. In view of the aforesaid, th
(1) – Limitation period – Length of delay is a relevant matter which court must take into consideration while considering whether delay should be condoned or not – While considering plea for condona....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for convincing and acceptable reasons for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
